[Official] Middle East REVAMP [Quenched]

pancakemix · Post by **pancakemix** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:21 pm

I like the Bedouin.

DiM · Post by **DiM** » Fri Apr 13, 2007 9:36 pm

how about something like this?

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:43 am

If this map is a bit older cant we change some of the names...Particulary Isreal and Palenstines tettories....Which i find ULTRA modern since its only been know as that since 1950!!!

Skittles! · Post by **Skittles!** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:53 am

You can't change names. GAH!

iAnonymous · Post by **iAnonymous** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 2:14 am

Spiegelprime wrote:How about a good ole Bedouin?

[img]
if you can shrink him down or something....

The cavalary archer looks better than the bedouin IMO. It looks way too aggressive.

t.e.c · Post by **t.e.c** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 6:55 am

hulmey wrote:If this map is a bit older cant we change some of the names...Particulary Isreal and Palenstines tettories....Which i find ULTRA modern since its only been know as that since 1950!!!

AndyDufresne wrote:I've been in contact with the original cartographer, spiegleprime, and he was enthusastic about having the graphics revamped. The only stipulations are....
No border changing
No name changing
Try to make it feel like an old world/antique parchment...as that was what he said he originally wanted to try to do
So I give you the go ahead, as long as you follow all of those guidelines!

--Andy

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:01 am

dont think map author would mind having just one r two names changed!

spinwizard · Post by **spinwizard** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:03 am

i said that but it is not alowed

we should call it israel as it is shorter and will fit better!

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:07 am

israel wasnt even around before 1950...They where re-settked back into their home land by the british after the 2nd world war...Biggest mistake ever if you ask me!!

spinwizard · Post by **spinwizard** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:08 am

i said that cause it is shorter than the traditional palistine (sp)

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:28 am

im not even sure if it was called palenstine in the era this map is representing!!

t.e.c · Post by **t.e.c** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 7:47 am

it's pointless arguing because it won't be changed

AndyDufresne · Post by **AndyDufresne** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 1:09 pm

This REVAMP is most definitely coming along. Hopefully it will set a nice precedent for other REVAMPS in the future if we so choose to do more. I like most everything going on in the map. Hopefully Spiegleprime can stop by and give his last thumbs up, and then we can see where we can go from there!

--Andy

Spiegelprime · Post by **Spiegelprime** » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:38 pm

Ok, this map is not depicting any time in particular. The borders I used were the modern ones but yes some of the names are less so. If you want to say that Israel has only been around since 1948 (not 1950 by the by) you first of all forget the ancient kingdom of Israel from the Biblical era and up until it was conquered by Babylonia. And the fact is that Pakistan only came into existence in 1947 with the partition of British ruled India, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan in 1991 with the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as for the long name of Israel and the Palestinian Territories, it came as a compromise between Lack and I in the original process. I wouldn't call it just Israel, he wouldn't let me call it Palestine (which is a name that comes from the Roman Palestinia coming from the Philistines who used to live there) so we settled to call it both. The fact that people continue to ask to change the names is not only obnoxious but a waste of all of our time. The map itself looks fantastic and I look forward to seeing it actually finished and posted up!

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:26 am

Thanks Spiegelprime, I'm glad you like the map.

April 15
- Iran label moved slightly East

Comments
Now, I've tried about a dozen different images in place of the archer, some that were posted here and others I found myself. Not one of them fitted as well with the rest of the map like the archer does. The initial images were usually too large and/or detailed and when scaled down looked horrible or unrecognizable. I think the image of the archer works because it is relatively simple and no detail gets lost in the scaling except for the string. Yes there is a string, it's just impossible to see at such a small size and most of it sits behind the bow. I'm still open to suggestions on the archer though, so if anyone thinks there's a better option I'd like to know.

The Iran label was moved, were there any other requests?

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:52 am

Whats so obnoxious about trying to find a shorter name than the one presently usded for Israel and palenstine terr?

And why is it a waste of time?

t.e.c · Post by **t.e.c** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:58 am

because it won't be changed

plysprtz · Post by **plysprtz** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:34 am

i dont know if this has been said and dont want to go loook so yea whats the point of this?

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 2:53 am

The Iran label was moved, were there any other requests?

yup istanbul looks like it doesn't belong to the map because it doesn't touch the other countrys

t.e.c · Post by **t.e.c** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:03 am

plysprtz wrote:i dont know if this has been said and dont want to go loook so yea whats the point of this?

what's the point of what?

KEYOGI · Post by **KEYOGI** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:18 am

Wisse wrote:istanbul looks like it doesn't belong to the map because it doesn't touch the other countrys

Solution? There's not enough room to add a sea connection. I thought it was pretty obvious it belongs to Turkey and borders Izmir, especially when there's a number in there.

ClessAlvein · Post by **ClessAlvein** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:25 am

I think there's enough room on the left side of Istanbul/Izmir for a sea connection.

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 3:31 am

KEYOGI wrote:
Wisse wrote:istanbul looks like it doesn't belong to the map because it doesn't touch the other countrys

Solution? There's not enough room to add a sea connection. I thought it was pretty obvious it belongs to Turkey and borders Izmir, especially when there's a number in there.

try to make it connect with eachother

johloh · Post by **johloh** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 10:30 am

I think the archer looks great, i def wouldnt change it

I think istanbul looks fine, but I could go with a sea connection or not...doesnt matter to me...maybe try it, and if it looks bad you can ditch it.

hulmey · Post by **hulmey** » Sun Apr 15, 2007 11:19 am

i dont think it obvious espically if its the first time ur playing it....

I just had a quick look at the old map and theres no sea in between!!

why dont you get rid of the sea and make it all one land?